Top court questions policy on sick leave

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2006 10:35 p.m. MST
E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
Is the state's employee-sick-leave-for-health-care program a "gold watch" benefit given at the time of retirement? Or is it something promised to state employees throughout their careers?

During a special hearing Tuesday before the Utah Supreme Court, several justices questioned the state's claim that the offer to exchange eight hours of sick leave for one month's post-retirement health care only becomes a real benefit when an employee retires.

The distinction comes after the Utah Legislature passed a bill ending the program for state employees, including many who had built up thousands of hours of sick leave, banking on using it to see them through their retirement years for health coverage. The bill went into effect this month.

State officials say with the cost of health care doubling over the past five years, the cost to the state was becoming unrealistic. State employees can still cash in their sick leave dollar-for-dollar.

Yet with many employees banking their sick leave over the years, justices questioned how that doesn't amount to an incentive.

"Do they actually have to be on their way out the door in order to be eligible?" asked justice Michael Wilkins.

Story continues below
Deputy Utah Attorney General Clark Waddoups said he felt the statute read that way.

But Chief Justice Christine Durham said the program appeared to encourage employees not to use their sick leave over the course of their employment.

Wilkins added that it did not seem logical that the incentive would be first offered to a retiring employee already out the door.

Benson Hathaway, attorney for the Utah Public Employees Association, which is suing the state over the legislation, said the state hasn't even explored the possibility of eliminating the program for future employees.

When asked by the justices, Waddoups said leaving the program intact would be financially devastating for the state but admitted no fiscal study has been done to see if the program can be phased out prospectively.

Hathaway said the offering of the program created a contract that the state now wants to break.

Waddoups said under law, the state has a right to withdraw the program at any time because it's not a "vested right."

Durham said the court was going to try to get an expedited response, knowing there are many state employees who are waiting for an outcome to make retirement decisions.


E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.